S u p reme Court Lets Stand Arbitration Aw a rd Reinstating RN Fired for Medication A d m i n i s t ration Irre g u l a r i t i e s

Vol. 32 No. 2 Summer 2006 Inside... S u p reme Court Lets Stand A r b i t ration Aw a rd Reinstating RN Fired for Medication A d m i n i s t ration Irre g u l a r i t i e s.................1 Four Years after Winning Union Election, Nursing Facility Gets M i xed Ruling From NLRB......................2 NLRB Limits Extension of Cert i f i c a t i o n Year to T h ree Months...........................3 Workplace Implications of a Potential Avian Flu Pandemic: Preparing for the Unimaginable...4 JACKSON LEWIS NEWS...6 MANAGEMENT EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES The Jackson Lewis Women's Employment Law Conference...7 Jackson Lewis 4th Annual Golf Invitational & Employment Law Conference...7 An update on current labor, employment, benefits and immigration issues concerning the health care industry S u p reme Court Lets Stand Arbitration Aw a rd Reinstating RN Fired for Medication A d m i n i s t ration Irre g u l a r i t i e s T he U.S. Supreme Court will not review a decision to reinstate a re g i s t e red nurse who had been terminated for violating hospital policy on medication administra t i o n. The hospital sought to re verse the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circ u i t e n f o rcing an arbitration award reinstating the i n t e n s i ve care nurse based on public policy concerns. [M e rcy Hosp., Inc. v. Massachusetts Nurses Ass n, 429 F3d 338 (1st Cir., 2005), cert. denied, No. 05-1080 (May 1, 2006).] The ICU nurse was at all re l e vant times a member of the union and cove red by a collect i ve bargaining agreement that permitted the hospital to discharge employees for just cause. The agreement contained a multi-step grievance pro c e d u re, including final and binding a r b i t ration. During the nurse s 25-year care e r, she re c e i ve d p o s i t i ve performance reviews, and she serve d as a preceptor charged with training new ICU nurses. In 2001, the hospital changed its system for administering medication to ICU patients and installed an Omnincell, a comp u t e r i zed medical chest that operated by using various electronic codes to unlock the compartment housing the medication. After administering the medication, the nurse would re c o rd the time, the drug, and the dosage in a separa t e database. A patient-specific medicine administ ration schedule (MAS) displaying the patient data would be filed in the patient s chart. In 2002, a nursing supervisor discove red some inconsistencies between the Omnicell re c o rd and the MAS for certain of the nurse s patients. It appeared that the nurse had withdrawn medication from the Omnicell without re c o rd i n g an offsetting entry in the database. In one instance, the nurse explained that she had w i t h d rawn a large dose of a medication to p re p a re an intra venous drip bag and to avo i d having to return periodically to the Omnicell to obtain smaller doses prescribed in the physic i a n s orders. The nurse also suggested that she may have made documentation errors while All we do is work S M working with her trainees. The hospital re j e c t- ed the nurse s explanation and terminated her e m p l oyment for failure to adhere to standard s re g a rding narcotic and controlled substance a d m i n i s t ration and suspected drug dive r s i o n. The grievance filed by the union on the nurse s behalf was submitted to binding arbitra t i o n. Fo l l owing a hearing, the arbitrator ruled that the evidence did not support the claim that the nurse had engaged in drug diversion. T h e a r b i t rator found that the discrepancies likely we re the result of documentation errors. T h e a r b i t rator accepted the testimony of two nonp a rty witnesses that it was a common pra c t i c e for ICU nurses to pre p a re intra venous drip bags before they we re needed and, while not ideal, to deviate from a doctor s order and administer a medication by intra venous drip, rather than syringe. Fu rt h e r, the hospital o f f e red no proof that the nurse had dive rt e d any medication. Accord i n g l y, the arbitrator concluded that the hospital failed to prove that it had terminated the nurse with just cause and o rd e red her reinstated with back pay and with no loss of seniority. The hospital filed suit in federal district court to vacate the award on the ground that the re i n- statement violated public policy. After that c o u rt upheld the arbitration award, the hospital appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit where the hospital argued that the a w a rd offended Massachusetts public policy re g a rding the use and distribution of contro l l e d substances. In support, the hospital arg u e d that the nurse had breached various licensing regulations by dive rting drugs away fro m patients, failing to document properly the dispensation of various controlled substances, and va rying the physician s prescribed method for administering medication. Noting that the standards for vacating an a r b i t ration award are high, the court re j e c t e d the hospital s arguments because they i g n o re[d] the arbitra t o r s resolution of the disputed issues. The court stated, e ven if the 31

mandated reinstatement of a nurse found to have d e l i b e rately dive rted drugs might violate an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy... the mandated reinstatement of a nurse who has been exonerated of all charges of intentional drug diversion... plainly would not. The court further noted, Context is important. Here, the nature of the errors, the e m p l oye e s history, [and] the lack of any harm to patients... persuade us that reinstatement is not an affront to public policy. As this case demonstrates, the arbitration hearing is the most important part of a grievance pro c e d u re since the likelihood of convincing a court to re verse an arbitration award based on policy grounds in a subsequent federal court action is slim. The case f u rther illustrates that arbitrators and courts may examine the entire context of an employe e s work h i s t o ry in making just cause terminations. Here, the nurse was a sympathetic plaintiff; she was highly re g a rded, long-tenured, and had no prior, documented performance issues. These factors added to the burden of convincing the court to re verse the arbitra t o r s a w a rd, one which this employer was unsuccessful in c a r rying. If you have any questions about this decision or other matters affecting healthcare employers, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom yo u regularly work, or partner Roger P. Gilson, at ( 2 03) 961-0404; GilsonP@jacksonlewis.com. Four Years after Winning Union Election, Nursing Facility Gets Mixed Ruling From NLRB Four years after winning a re p resentation election, a nursing care facility re c e i ved a mixed ruling f rom the National Labor Relations Board on seve r- al unfair labor practice charges that arose during the course of, and immediately following, that election. Sp e c i f i c a l l y, the Board found that the employer lawfully directed an employee to re m ove a square - s h a p e d p ro-union button due to the employe r s concern re g a rding the safety of the elderly re s i d e n t s. H owe ve r, the Board also ruled that the employe r s non-solicitation policy violated 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act because it was ove r- b road. Additionally, the employer was found to have lawfully disciplined a union supporter but had violated the Act by threatening her with discharg e. [Jupiter Med. Ctr. Pavillion and Se rvice Employees Int l Union, 1199 Fla., 346 NLRB No. 61 (Mar. 13, 2006).] During an organizing campaign which the union ultimately lost, the employe r s director of nursing told a certified nursing assistant to re m ove his square p ro-union button while he was providing patient care. When the employee asked why, the nursing dire c t o r explained that she was concerned for the patient s safety; specifically, that the button could cut the thin, f ragile skin of an elderly patient. The nursing dire c t o r also stated that the button was adve rtising and violated the employe r s non-solicitation policy. The policy defined solicitation as, any act of urging or persuading individuals... to accept a product or service for sale, a doctrine to follow, or an organization to join. The policy prohibited all solicitation on the employe r s p remises during working time. The Board affirmed the administra t i ve law judge s finding that the nursing director lawfully instructed the employee to re m ove the button. Although the AL J was not totally convinced that the button could i n j u re a patient, the employer lawfully chose to put a p remium on patient safety. Howe ve r, the Board also affirmed the AL J s finding that the non-solicitation policy was ove r b road. As drafted, the policy would p rohibit advocating the principles of collective b a rgaining and persuading an individual to join a union, yet permit expressions of opposition to union membership or collective bargaining. The employe r did not apply the policy uniformly, and the evidence established that employees wore other buttons on their uniforms, such as God Bless America, without objection from the employe r. The employer also had p romulgated a work rule prohibiting employees fro m discussing their wage rates with each other, and the non-solicitation policy did not distinguish betwe e n patient care and non-patient care areas. All of these factors led to the AL J s conclusion, upheld by the B o a rd, that the policy reasonably could chill e m p l oyee rights and was ove r b ro a d. In addition, the Board re v i e wed and found lawful s e ve ral findings re g a rding administration of disciplin a ry measures against a union support e r. Two ora l warnings one for changing shifts without superv i s o r a p p roval and a second for failing to turn bedridden patients and leaving them in urine-soaked underg a r- ments we re found lawful. Another written warning for verbal abuse based on an altercation between two employees two days after the election was also found to be lawful. Although the employe r s decision to issue the warning was motivated in part by the e m p l oye e s union activities, the employer would h a ve imposed the same discipline even in the absence of those activities, the Board concluded. L a s t l y, the Board considered the charge that the e m p l oye r s nursing director impliedly had thre a t e n e d to discharge the same employee union support e r. 2

During the campaign, the employer held a series of meetings with employees to express its views against re p resentation. During one meeting, the employe e commented that the employer was spending a lot of time and money trying to figure out who started the union, rather than addressing the employe e s poor treatment. The nursing director replied that the employee seemed unhappy and that perhaps this [wasn t] the place for [her]. The nursing dire c t o r then commented that there [we re] a lot of jobs out t h e re. The Board concluded that these statements impliedly threatened the employee with discharge by suggesting that she leave, rather than engage in union activity. Health care employers should review their no-solicitation policies to ensure that they are not ove r b ro a d, that they distinguish between patient-care and non patient-care areas, and that they are applied u n i f o r m l y, particularly with respect to the wearing of buttons and other insignia. Even in the wake of an organizing campaign, health care employers may take corre c t i ve action against union supporters if they violate legitimate workplace rules. Nonetheless, e m p l oyers should use caution when speaking with e m p l oyees during organizing campaigns, as any comments could be placed under scrutiny in subsequent Board pro c e e d i n g s. If you have any questions about this decision or other matters affecting healthcare employers, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work, or partner Roger P. Gilson, ( 2 03) 961-0404; GilsonR@jacksonlewis.com. N LRB Limits Extension of C e rtification Year to T h ree Months Despite a ten-month delay in bargaining for a first c o n t ract covering emergency medical technicians and paramedics, the National Labor Re l a t i o n s B o a rd disagreed with an administra t i ve law judge s recommendation to extend the certification year for an entire ye a r. Instead, because the initial ten months of the certification year we re free from unfair labor practices and because the re c o rd contained no explanation re g a rding the ten-month barg a i n i n g d e l a y, the NLRB concluded that only a thre e - m o n t h extension was appropriate. [M e rc y, Inc. d/b/a Am. Med. Response & Se rvice Employees Int l Union, Local 110 7, 346 N.L.R.B. 88 (Apr. 26, 2006).] The union was certified as the re p re s e n t a t i ve of full-time and part-time EMT s and paramedics in the e m p l oye r s Las Vegas, Nevada facility. The parties had their first bargaining session ten months after the election. When the first session ended with the u n i o n s refusal to agree to the employe r s g ro u n d rules, the union subsequently served the employe r 1 10 information requests. The employer responded to some, but not all, of the union s re q u e s t s. S u b s e q u e n t l y, the union filed an unfair labor pra c t i c e c h a rge against the employe r, alleging refusal to b a rgain in violation of 8(a)(1) & (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The union claimed the employe r unlawfully had preconditioned bargaining on the u n i o n s agreement to ground rules which we re not mandatory subjects of bargaining. The same day the unfair labor practice charge was filed, the employees filed a petition to decertify the union. Although the union subsequently amended its c h a rge to allege that the employer violated the Act by failing to comply with its information requests, the p a rties eventually resumed negotiations and scheduled bargaining sessions. B e f o re the bargaining schedule was completed, an a d m i n i s t ra t i ve law judge held a hearing on the union s complaint and concluded that a one-year extension of the certification year was appropriate even though the union bore some responsibility for the delay in b a rgaining. The ALJ also discounted the fact that the p a rties had engaged in some bargaining because the e m p l oyer had failed to comply fully with the union s information requests. Finally, the ALJ found that the pending decertification petition necessitated a o n e - year extension. While an employer must honor a newly certified union for one ye a r, the Board may, in its discretion, extend the certification year to remedy any violation of the NLRA during that initial ye a r. Howe ve r, the union did not take advantage of the certification year for m o re than 10 months, and no unfair labor pra c t i c e s o c c u r red during that time. The union showed no reason for its delay in bargaining, and, significantly, the Board found it inappropriate to assume that the delay was caused by the [employer]. Thus, the B o a rd concluded that a one-year extension was i n a p p ropriate and modified the order to re q u i re only a three-month extension. If you have any questions about this decision or other matters affecting health care employers, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work, or partner Roger P. Gilson, at (203) 961-0404; GilsonR@jacksonlewis.com. 3

4 Workplace Safety and Health Workplace Implications of a Potential Avian Flu Pa n d e m i c : Preparing for the Unimaginable O n October 14, 2005, the World Health Org a n i z a t i o n published the following Ten Things You Need To K n ow About Pandemic Influenza (see full re p o rt at http://www. w h o. i n t / c s r / d i s e a s e / i n f l u e n z a / p a n d e m i c 10 t h i n g s / e n / i n d e x. h t m l ). 1. Pandemic influenza is different from avian influenza. 2. Influenza pandemics are recurring events. 3. The world may be on the brink of another pandemic. 4. All countries will be affected. 5. Wi d e s p read illness will occur. 6. Medical supplies will be inadequate. 7. L a rge numbers of deaths will occur. 8. Economic and social disruption will be gre a t. 9. Eve ry country must be pre p a re d. 10. WHO will alert the world when the pandemic threat incre a s e s. This list is foreboding, and there is good reason why many health care and other employers are taking a longer look at a difficult scenario. Some basic questions to which employers should consider answe r s a re: What would happen if a significant number of e m p l oyees could not come to work? What would that number be, and would this force a shutdown of the facility? What if the crisis lasted for many weeks; how would operations continue with less than full staff? Perhaps more than other employers, health care e m p l oyers must imagine the u n i m a g i n a b l e and p re p a re for this contingency. While disaster p re p a redness planning already may be mandatory for some facilities, others may still be in the planning and development stages, or may need to focus more attention on the non-provider personnel, such as intake, billing, clerical, maintenance, food serv i c e, l a u n d ry and other administra t i ve and support staff, p a rticularly with re g a rd to an influenza pandemic or other disease or biologically-based crisis. The following is a list of issues to consider in eva l u a t- ing the implications of a potential avian flu pandemic. 1) Consider Options for Curtailing Business Operations T h e re will be different rules during a pandemic and no one plan is appropriate for all employers. Consider the type of health-related services your facilities p rovide and determine the appropriate options is it possible partially to shut down or reduce opera t i o n s, delay or reduce pro c e d u res, shift work to differe n t times of day or locations where contact with the public or the potential risk of contagion would be m o re limited? Given the real potential for a risk to life, it is appropriate to consider planning for a period of time in which provision of services is interrupted either totally or partially and how crisis management planning would be implemented. 2) Explore Options for Transporting Critical Employees to Work E m p l oyees may have difficulty commuting to work if public tra n s p o rtation systems are challenged during a pandemic. Employees may fear using public tra n s- p o rtation because of the unreliability of such systems or the increased risk of contagion due to intera c t i o n with large members of the public. Employers should consider provision of alternative tra n s p o rt a t i o n, including car pools, charter buses, and other p re a r ranged systems. 3) Communicate Facility Plans for Reducing Potential Exposure at Work and Address Family Needs While Employees Are Away From Home During a crisis, employees are more likely to re p o rt for work and be pro d u c t i ve if the employer takes e f f e c t i ve steps to safeguard their health while at work and re c o g n i ze their concerns about leaving their families and friends. Encourage attendance by a d d ressing employee fears and concerns head-on. Some basic steps to reduce workplace contagion, i n c rease employee confidence in working conditions, and allay anxiety about leaving home include: a ) minimizing interaction with other members of the public during work hours; b )a l l owing employees to work in isolation wheneve r possible; c ) e n c o u raging frequent breaks for employees to wash and sanitize their hands; d )making masks, gloves, or other personal pro t e c t i ve equipment readily available in the workplace; e ) p roviding packaged food, drinks and snacks to reduce the need for employees to leave the p remises for meals or breaks; f) p roviding cots or inflatable mattresses in the workplace to enable employees to sleep at work to decrease the need to use tra n s p o rtation;

g )p roviding immediate access to medical staff to e valuate suspected cases of exposure; h )facilitating treatment with anti-viral drugs wheneve r possible for suspected exposures; i ) restricting access to the workplace by visitors and n o n - e m p l oyees; j ) a l l owing employees to communicate readily with family members; and k ) a l l owing employees to take family members to work where possible. 4) Identify Work That Could Be Performed from Home, Develop Implementing Procedures, and Train Eligible Employees While in the health care facility setting home-based work opportunities may be limited, some positions may be amenable with planning and pro c e d u re s d e veloped in advance. This solution may re q u i re i n vestment in technology that facilitates effective communication and productivity for home-based workers, as well as development of protocols for t racking work time, communicating with management and co-workers, delivering work product, and intera c t- ing with the public, among others. Dress re h e a r s a l s with eligible home workers may help reduce potential p roblems while providing a sense of first-hand experience before a crisis develops. 5) Allow or Require Employees Who Are Not Critical to Operations to Use Accrued Paid Vacation or Personal Time Reducing operations in some areas may be possible, t h e re by decreasing the number of employees coming to work and reducing the risk of contagion. Howe ve r, f o rcing employees to take unpaid leave likely would cause an unacceptable hard s h i p. In those cases, e m p l oyers may consider ways to retain workers t h rough the use of bank or paid time that accumulates for later use in such circumstances. Human re s o u rces professionals should work with payro l l, benefits and other aspects of facility administration to develop cre a t i ve business interruption pro g ra m s that address the unique circumstances employe e s would face we re they to have a forced period of u n e m p l oyment during a pandemic. 6) Delay Disciplinary Action for Employees Who Fail to Appear for Work During a crisis, employees may have justifiable reasons why they did not show for work (e.g., illness, t ra n s p o rtation issues, school closures and the absence of child care arrangements, etc.). If there is a significant loss of life, health care employers will need all the personnel they can get after the crisis is ove r. Conve r s e l y, employees who sacrificed and risked personal health by coming to work may re s e n t those who failed to make such a commitment. E m p l oyers should consider implementing an internal dispute resolution process to address the many va r i e d explanations employers are apt to re c e i ve fro m e m p l oyees who do not appear for work. 7) Prepare Written Policies or Contingency Plans for Periods of Business Interruption E m p l oyee confidence likely will be buoyed if the e m p l oyer is perc e i ved by employees to be well prep a red for a pandemic or other major interruption of o p e rations. Communicate the facility s written emergency plan, pre f e rably through employee meetings and training sessions. Incorporate the plan into new e m p l oyee orientation, and use opportunities genera l l y to acknowledge the plan in public statements. Even if n e ver implemented, communication of the facility s p re p a redness will tell employees they work for an e m p l oyer of choice. In itself, this is a va l u a b l e asset, and should you need to implement the plan, your employees are likely to appreciate your effort s and contribute even more to help alleviate a difficult situation. These plans also can be an inva l u a b l e s o u rce of information about the facts surrounding a potential pandemic and may ultimately save live s. 8) Solicit Cooperation of Labor Representatives Because flexibility will be of paramount import a n c e, labor contract provisions concerning tempora ry layoffs, leaves of absence, transfers, and out of barg a i n- ing unit work may determine an employe r s ability to respond effectively to a pandemic. Employe r s should review labor contracts now to determine what flexibility they have under existing agre e m e n t s. W h e re necessary, employers may want to negotiate specific provisions for authority to make tempora ry but important changes to respond to labor short a g e s or unprecedented shut downs or layoffs. Without union confidence and cooperation, it is less likely employees will appear for work to the degre e you may need them. If they buy in to pandemic planning, unions also can re i n f o rce employer stra t e- gies for reducing workplace exposures and contagion. E m p l oyers should consider advising unions of the steps they intend to take to combat a pandemic and be pre p a red to re c e i ve input from the unions concerning the employe r s plan. Once the crisis ends, employers and unions will need to work together to tackle post-pandemic challenges. Labor management coope ration and leadership during a pandemic likely will turn on the trust built in planning for the pandemic. 9) Prepare to Provide Counseling and Other Employee Assistance Following the Crisis T h rough 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, employers unfortunately already have experience dealing with larg e g roups of employees returning to work while simultaneously attempting to cope with tra g e d y. W h e t h e r 5

they face challenges posed by their own re c ove ry fro m influenza, the loss of a loved one, or post-tra u m a t i c episodes that play out in the workplace including fear of tra vel, employees are likely to bring their personal struggles into the workplace. Employers cannot i g n o re this reality without the likelihood of incre a s e d t u r n ove r, employment disputes, and poor pro d u c t i v i t y. E m p l oyers should review existing employee support p ro g rams and explore ways to re i n f o rce and augment them in case of a mass disaster and its aftermath. 10. Coordinate Plans with Federal, State and Local Governments While health care employers should develop and maintain their own plans to deal with a potential pandemic, those plans necessarily will dovetail with plans being put into place by federal, state and local governments. Maximizing cooperation and c o l l a b o ration will aid in reducing panic, assuring an o rderly and safe response, implementing the prov i- sion of services to the mass population, and ultimately saving lives. From logistical plans for continuing or modifying public tra n s p o rtation schedules to information about local school closings and other basic needs to enable employees to re p o rt for work, detailed disaster planning and coordination will be critical to reducing work shortages and making the d i f f e rence between a facility that is providing much needed critical services and one that is closed. E m p l oyers also should know and disseminate information for responding to suspected exposures to influenza and for accessing anti-viral drugs. Conclusion None of us hopes to experience a pandemic. Few of us even want to think about it. If one occurs, howe ve r, we will be thankful if we are pre p a red for that day. E m p l oyer pre p a redness will be critical. Employe r s ought to review periodically disaster pre p a re d n e s s plans in light of their legal rights, obligations, and options for responding. While workplace management may be a re l a t i vely minor concern during a pandemic, an effective and pre p a red human re s o u rc e s s t a f f, coupled with practical business interruption planning and labor management cooperation may be critical factors in how entire communities live thro u g h and re c over from such an eve n t. Re s o u rces for additional information include: CDC website: http://www. p a n d e m i c f l u. g ov / ; w w w. c d c. g ov / b u s i n e s s World Health Organization website Business Pandemic Influenza Checklist : h t t p : / / w w w. w h o. i n t / c s r / re s o u rc e s / p u b l i c a t i o n s / i n f l u e n z a / WH O _ CD S _ CS R _ GIP _ 2 0 0 5 _ 8 / e n / i n d e x. h t m l The Jackson Lewis Disability, Le a ve and Health Management Group can assist employers in assessing their workplace needs, legal rights and obligations re g a rding pandemic and disaster planning. For more information, please contact the attorney with whom you regularly work, or partner Frank Al va rez, (914) 514-6149, Al va rezf@jacksonlewis.com. Jackson Lewis News Firm Expands with Addition of Two Resident Offices and Two Experienced Pra c t i t i o n e r s Jackson Lewis is pleased to announce the opening of two resident offices and the addition of two seasoned attorneys. The addition of Cleveland and Prov i d e n c e brings the number of our resident offices to 23. In Cleveland, Ohio, senior benefits counsel Ku rt Smidansky has joined the firm and is the re s i d e n t a t t o r n e y. Ku rt has more than 20 ye a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e handling employee benefits and exe c u t i ve compensation matters and is part of our Benefits Counseling and Litigation Practice Gro u p. He is a graduate of Case Western Re s e rve University (B.A. 1981; J.D. 1984) and New York University (LL.M. (Taxation) 1985). In Providence, Rhode Island, Rebecca McSweeney has joined our firm and is resident counsel. Becky is a litigator and trial lawye r w i t h 20 years of experience. Prior to joining the firm, she was the national c o o rdinating counsel for a Fo rtune 300 international c o r p o ration, and through a former firm was in-house counsel for one of the country s largest insura n c e companies. Pa rtner Anthony DiOrio is working closely with Becky and the Providence office. Anthony was a trial attorney in Rhode Island and has continued to re p resent employers in Rhode Island for the past eight years since joining Jackson Lewis in the White Plains, New York office. Jackson Lewis LLP 29225 Chagrin Bouleva rd Suite 350 C l e veland, OH 4412 2 (216) 502-4949; (216) 502-4950 (fax) S m i d a n s k y K @ j a c k s o n l e w i s. c o m Jackson Lewis LLP 127 Dorrance St reet, 4th Floor Providence, RI 02903 (401) 490-3444; (401) 454-8855 (fax) M c s we e n R @ j a c k s o n l e w i s. c o m 6

Management Education Opport u n i t i e s The Jackson Lewis Women's Employment Law Confere n c e You are invited to attend the annual Jackson Lewis Wo m e n s Employment Law Conference. The Confere n c e offers an ideal opportunity to learn the latest developments in workplace law, earn CLE credits, and network with other in-house counsel and HR exe c u t i ves. This ye a r, the Conference is offered at three times and locations: East Coast West Coast S o u t h e r n October 26-27, 2006 N ovember 2-3, 2006 N ovember 8-9, 2006 Hilton Short Hills C l a remont Re s o rt and Sp a The Biltmore Hotel S h o rt Hills, NJ B e r k e l e y, CA C o ral Gables, FL Re g i s t ration is $195. CLE and HRCI credits are ava i l a b l e. For information and re g i s t ration, contact Michele Coletta. 212-545-4019. colettam@jacksonlewis.com. Website: www.jacksonlewis.com Jackson Lewis 4th Annual Golf Invitational & E m p l oyment Law Confere n c e Sa ve the Date! In-house counsel and HR professionals have the opportunity to earn 4 hours of C LE and HRCI credits with lively instruction and timely discussion of workplace issues to avo i d e m p l oyment discrimination lawsuits and the unpro d u c t i ve diversion of time and energy that accompanies them. What makes this seminar unique is the out-of-this-world golf experience. All levels of players f rom beginners to scratch golfers are encouraged to meet new friends, participate in intera c t i ve instructional clinics, and enjoy exceptional golf outings. This is an excellent way to satisfy continuing educational re q u i rements while enjoying a truly outstanding golf experience. Attend the one day session or plan to stay for the entire 2-day eve n t. October 4-6, 2006 Mid Pines Inn & Golf Club Southern Pines, NC C EU Credit: 4.00 Hours; HRCI Credit: 4.00 Hours For more information: Tonya Mills, Jackson Lewis Raleigh-Durham Office, 1400 Crescent Green / Suite 320, Cary, NC 27511 919-854-0044; millst@jacksonlewis.com. www. j a c k s o n l e w i s. c o m. 7

HealthCare Emp Summer 06 6/22/06 9:08 PM Page 8 Jackson Lewis e-subscription Services Sign up now to receive Jackson Lewis email updates on workplace law developments. SUBS CRIBE ONLINE: go to myupdates.jacksonlewis.com and complete the electronic form for instant subscription service. or COMPLETE T HIS FORM and mail or fax back to Jackson Lewis (see below): E-mail Address (for receiving updates) First Name M.I. Last Name Job Title Company Mailing Address City State/Province Phone ( ) Fax ( ) Company Website Industry Type SIC Code (if known) NA I CS code (if known) Are you an attorney? Yes No BY FAX : Jackson Lewis (914) 328-0 820 Attention: Ms. Leslie Davis Zip/Postal BY MA IL : Ms. Leslie Davis Jackson Lewis One North Broadway, 15th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 JACKSON LE WIS OFFI C ES Editors: Roger P. Gilson, Esq. and Margaret R. Bryant, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP Editorial Office: One North Bro a d w a y White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 328-0404 www.jacksonlewis.com The articles in this Update are designed to give general and timely information on the subjects cove red. They are not intended as advice or assistance with respect to individual problems. This Update is provided with the understanding that the publisher, editor or authors are not engaged in rendering legal or other p rofessional services. Readers should consult competent counsel or other professional services of their own choosing as to how the matters discussed relate to their own affairs or to resolve specific p roblems or questions. 2006 Jackson Lewis LLP 8 Atlanta, GA (404) 525-82 0 0 Los Angeles, CA ( 2 13) 68 9-0 4 0 4 Raleigh-Durham, NC (919) 854-0044 Boston, MA ( 6 17) 367-0025 Miami, FL (305) 577-7600 Sacramento, CA (916) 341-0404 Chicago, IL ( 3 12) 787-4949 Minneapolis, MN ( 6 12) 341-8131 San Francisco, CA (415) 394-9400 C l e veland, OH (216) 502-4949 M o r r i s t own, NJ (973) 538-6890 Seattle, WA (206) 405-0404 Dallas, TX (214) 520-2400 New York, NY ( 2 12) 545-4000 Stamford, CT ( 2 03) 961-0404 G reenville, SC (864) 232-7000 Orlando, FL (407) 246-8440 Washington DC Re g i o n (703) 821-2189 Hartford, CT (860) 522-0404 Pittsburgh, PA (412)232-0404 White Plains, NY (914) 328-0404 Long Island, NY ( 631) 247-0404 Providence, RI (401) 490-3444